Sasikumar v. The Sub-Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:09.02.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1962 of 2018 1.Sasikumar 2.Udayasundari W/o.Sasikumar 3.Muthulakshmi W/o.Athilingam 4.Chandra ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 (Amended as per order of this Hon'ble Court made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1962/2018, dated 09.02.2018) -Vs1.The State rep. By its Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruparangundram Police Station, Madurai City, (Cr.No.195/14) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Panchavarnam ... Respondent/Informant PRAYER: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Cr.No.195/14 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Baskaran For Respondents : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu, Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for R-1 Ms.A.Valarmathy for R-2

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the F.I.R in Cr.No.195/14 on the file of the first respondent.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3.The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.195 of 2014. The second respondent is the defacto complainant in the above said crime number. The complaint in Crime No.195 of 2014 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C r/w Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act on the file of the first respondent police. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in the above said crime number. The first respondent is investigating the matter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.In the meanwhile, it appears that at the advise of the elders and friends, the petitioners and second respondent have agreed to compromise the matter, out of Court. A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 05.02.2018 is also filed to that effect. As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has given her consent to quash the proceedings in Crime No.195/2014 on the file of the first respondent Police in respect of these petitioners.

5.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocal terms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own will and volition. The identities of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through the first respondent police.

6.Having regard to the agreement made between the parties, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping these matters pending. As per the Compromise Memo signed by the parties, the de-facto complainant, namely, the second respondent has agreed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.195/2014 on the file of the first respondent Police in respect of these petitioners. Hence the criminal proceedings in Crime No.195/2014 on the file of the first respondent Police in respect of these petitioners are quashed and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl. side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To Enclosure : Herewith Xerox Copy of the Compromise Memo 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruparangundram Police Station, Madurai City.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.1962 of 2018 09.02.2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vs JM/SKN RSK/SAR 1/22.02.2018/2P/3C